Progarchives.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum SearchSearch  Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213 22>
Poll Question: What is your opinion on this?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
55 [73.33%]
1 [1.33%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
8 [10.67%]
9 [12.00%]
2 [2.67%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Message
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Online Status: Online
Posts: 32735
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage
    Posted: April 05 2013 at 09:53
Originally posted by AlexDOM



Originally posted by AlexDOM


Well actually I'm commanded to share with others the Gospel, well it's more of a blessing to share in, not so much a burden (which Christians including I sometimes fall susceptible to.

That's adorable.


Yeah it really is. I think it is that God would love me so much to use me to witness to others, rather than force Himself on others. Like the opportunity I'm getting now. 

 Christ died for all of us to take away our sins and three days later rose again conquering death. That is a very general overview of the Gospel, but if anyone is further interested I would love to share more to you. 

Yeah I know this blog thing is on the gay marriage thing, but I can't help to touch on what has changed my life and can change anyone. Can't hold back the good news!
Especially to share it with people who have a passion for the supreme genre of all music, progressive rock. Prog rules and that is one of the other things in life I love to talk about and grateful that the Lord opened up my eyes to.

A captive audience is not necessarily a receptive audience. In the real world I can simply walk away, here I am denied that luxury.


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
AlexDOM View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 02 2011
Location: Indianapolis
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 770
Post Options Post Options   Quote AlexDOM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2013 at 10:04
Originally posted by The Doctor

Originally posted by AlexDOM



 Can't hold back the good news!
 

 
You just saved 15% on your car insurance by switching to Jesus? 

Ha ha ha ha ha. That's kinda funny I'm not going to lie.
Back to Top
smartpatrol View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 15 2012
Location: My Bedroom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14137
Post Options Post Options   Quote smartpatrol Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2013 at 10:05
Save it for the Christian thread. If we wanted a sermon, we'd all go to a church 
Back to Top
AlexDOM View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 02 2011
Location: Indianapolis
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 770
Post Options Post Options   Quote AlexDOM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2013 at 10:17
Originally posted by smartpatrol

Save it for the Christian thread. If we wanted a sermon, we'd all go to a church 

Love you avatar.
Dude the The Mars Volta rocks, shame they broke up. I was jamming to De Loused last night. So good!!!




Edited by AlexDOM - April 05 2013 at 10:18
Back to Top
smartpatrol View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 15 2012
Location: My Bedroom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14137
Post Options Post Options   Quote smartpatrol Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2013 at 10:21
Indeed!
Back to Top
Triceratopsoil View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 03 2010
Location: Deadmonton
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17367
Post Options Post Options   Quote Triceratopsoil Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2013 at 13:30
Originally posted by AlexDOM


God would love me so much


No doubt.
Back to Top
Earendil View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 17 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1563
Post Options Post Options   Quote Earendil Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2013 at 15:59
Originally posted by Gerinski

It's kind of funny that this debate is so hot in a country which prides itself as the country of freedom Confused

BTW regarding previous comments regarding the 'naturalness' or otherwise of homosexuality, it is indeed some mystery how and why homosexuality has endured Darwinian natural selection for so long (I guess few doubt by now that it has genetic components), but not any more a mystery as why do we still have genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis which causes infertility in 97% of the affected people. A simplistic interpretation of Darwinian natural selection would suggest that such a genetic disorder should have been long eradicated from the gene pool but the reality is that it has not (in fact it is fairly common among Caucasians), and many other examples abound. Proof that nature can not be so simplistically interpreted (and to clarify, I'm not saying that homosexuality is a disease!).

There are theories regarding a possible evolutionary advantage of communities with homosexual members:




Originally posted by Gerinski

Originally posted by rushfan4


There are multiple points of view, but essentially you have the liberal side that says love is love let anyone marry who wants to marry.  Then there is the conservative side that says that God says that marriage is between a man and a woman and homosexuality is a morally reprehensible sin.   And then there are all points in between. 
I'm digressing here, but it's always amusing that in the US you call 'liberals' the center-left (democrats) and 'conservatives' the center-right (republicans) while in Europe we use the term 'liberals' for the center-right (conservatives, pro-capitalist system, christian-democrats). (and the term 'socialists' for the center-left, which nowadays are not much different from liberals but just with a bit more social-oriented agenda).

These terminologies (even the simple 'right' and 'left' words) were based on social environments which are no longer valid and I think that by now in the 21st century it's time that society should make a profound reflection and revision, because many not-so-well-educated people still forge their ideologies based on such cliches and terminologies without understanding what they are actually supporting, and heavily distorting the current political landscapes.

Nice posts! I enjoyed reading that link
Back to Top
Earendil View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 17 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1563
Post Options Post Options   Quote Earendil Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2013 at 16:04
My hesitation in saying that polygamy should be called marriage is because I think it contradicts the most basic definition of marriage.  A union between two people.

mar·riage

 
noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husbandand wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
2.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms:matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.
3.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a marriedcouple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials,marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
4.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of ahusband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
5.
any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms:blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion,schism.



But of course definitions are made up by people, so they can change.


Edited by Earendil - April 05 2013 at 16:06
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2524
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2013 at 17:23
Originally posted by Earendil

My hesitation in saying that polygamy should be called marriage is because I think it contradicts the most basic definition of marriage.  A union between two people.

mar·riage

 
noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husbandand wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
2.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms:matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.
3.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a marriedcouple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials,marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
4.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of ahusband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
5.
any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms:blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion,schism.



But of course definitions are made up by people, so they can change.


Well, if you look back through history, I'm pretty sure polygamous unions have been recognized much longer than gay marriage; you find them as far back as the Book of Genesis, whereas homosexuality is similarly ancient but gay marriage is a recent invention.  In ancient Greece, for example, homosexual relationships were common, especially between a young man and an older mentor who was also a sex partner.  They would have never thought of homosexual marriage, however.  At least that's been the case in Western/near Eastern civilization, I think.
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2524
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2013 at 17:29
By the way, can we please stop bashing Alex for articulating his religious beliefs?  You might disagree, or it might irritate you, but he's not being rude to anyone or expressing hate for anyone.  Neither is he forcing his beliefs on anyone any more than anyone else here is forcing their opinions on others.  He has every right to express his opinions and beliefs on religion  just as much as anyone else has the same right to express their opinions and beliefs on any other topic.
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
Back to Top
akamaisondufromage View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6229
Post Options Post Options   Quote akamaisondufromage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2013 at 18:02
If someone wants to openly equuate homosexuality with bestiality then he deserves whatever 'bashing' (written) that comes his way.  So no is the brief answer.  Sorry.
 
He may not be expressing hate (may) but he is being pretty downright offensive in my humble opinion.


Edited by akamaisondufromage - April 05 2013 at 18:05
Help me I'm falling!
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Online Status: Online
Posts: 32735
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2013 at 18:33
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

By the way, can we please stop bashing Alex for articulating his religious beliefs?  You might disagree, or it might irritate you, but he's not being rude to anyone or expressing hate for anyone.  Neither is he forcing his beliefs on anyone any more than anyone else here is forcing their opinions on others.  He has every right to express his opinions and beliefs on religion  just as much as anyone else has the same right to express their opinions and beliefs on any other topic.
He has every right to express his opinions on a subject irrespective of his belief and we have every right to express our opinion of his opinion, irrespective of his beliefs. No one here was bashing him for his beliefs, only for his opinions (which may or may not be based upon his beliefs).


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2524
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2013 at 19:08
^^He's equating the two because they're both sins, in his view.  If I'm reading him correctly, he would equate it with any other sexual sin, because of his theology of sin.  So he could also go the other way and equate homosexuality with premarital heterosexual sex, which would seem to be softening the typical conservative Christian position on the issue. 

^Why the distinction between his "opinions" and his "beliefs?"  I named both, not to distinguish them, but to lump them into one category.  It is his opinion that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world.  It is also his belief that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world.  Similarly, it is both his opinion and his belief that homosexuality is a sin.  And people here are ridiculing him for both of those beliefs.  The fact that others disagree does not make it right for them to resort to ridicule to express that disagreement.  Surely that type of thing should be discouraged?
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Online Status: Online
Posts: 32735
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2013 at 19:17
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes


^Why the distinction between his "opinions" and his "beliefs?"  I named both, not to distinguish them, but to lump them into one category.  It is his opinion that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world.  It is also his belief that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world.  Similarly, it is both his opinion and his belief that homosexuality is a sin.  And people here are ridiculing him for both of those beliefs.  The fact that others disagree does not make it right for them to resort to ridicule to express that disagreement.  Surely that type of thing should be discouraged?
If you (and he) find it so hard to distinguish between secular opinion and religious belief then that is a cop-out to prevent anyone from expressing opposition to that secular opinion, people are not ridiculing him for his beliefs.

Edited by Dean - April 05 2013 at 19:17


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2524
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2013 at 19:52
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes


^Why the distinction between his "opinions" and his "beliefs?"  I named both, not to distinguish them, but to lump them into one category.  It is his opinion that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world.  It is also his belief that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world.  Similarly, it is both his opinion and his belief that homosexuality is a sin.  And people here are ridiculing him for both of those beliefs.  The fact that others disagree does not make it right for them to resort to ridicule to express that disagreement.  Surely that type of thing should be discouraged?
If you (and he) find it so hard to distinguish between secular opinion and religious belief then that is a cop-out to prevent anyone from expressing opposition to that secular opinion, people are not ridiculing him for his beliefs.


Yes, he has been ridiculed for his religious beliefs.

Originally posted by Triceratopsoil

Originally posted by AlexDOM


Well actually I'm commanded to share with others the Gospel, well it's more of a blessing to share in, not so much a burden (which Christians including I sometimes fall susceptible to.)
That's adorable.


There's no "cop-out" here.  I make no distinction between a secular belief and a religious one, and I am quite open to opposition to either.  You're making an unfair distinction between his beliefs about God and his beliefs about homosexuality.  Both are his opinion.  Both are his belief.  Both can be posited as truth and both can be argued against; the fact that one has specifically to do with God and the other does not does not make them different kinds of statements.  Both are truth claims.  Both can be the subject of reasonable debate.  Both are either true or untrue.  Both can be "proven" to an extent, but neither can be proven with absolute certainty. 

None of this justifies ridiculing either of his beliefs/opinions/whatever-you-want-to-call-them.  They should be challenged, because all ideas should be challenged.  They should not be ridiculed.


In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Online Status: Online
Posts: 32735
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2013 at 20:18
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes


^Why the distinction between his "opinions" and his "beliefs?"  I named both, not to distinguish them, but to lump them into one category.  It is his opinion that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world.  It is also his belief that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world.  Similarly, it is both his opinion and his belief that homosexuality is a sin.  And people here are ridiculing him for both of those beliefs.  The fact that others disagree does not make it right for them to resort to ridicule to express that disagreement.  Surely that type of thing should be discouraged?
If you (and he) find it so hard to distinguish between secular opinion and religious belief then that is a cop-out to prevent anyone from expressing opposition to that secular opinion, people are not ridiculing him for his beliefs.


Yes, he has been ridiculed for his religious beliefs.

Originally posted by Triceratopsoil

Originally posted by AlexDOM


Well actually I'm commanded to share with others the Gospel, well it's more of a blessing to share in, not so much a burden (which Christians including I sometimes fall susceptible to.)
That's adorable.


There's no "cop-out" here.  I make no distinction between a secular belief and a religious one, and I am quite open to opposition to either.  You're making an unfair distinction between his beliefs about God and his beliefs about homosexuality.  Both are his opinion.  Both are his belief.  Both can be posited as truth and both can be argued against; the fact that one has specifically to do with God and the other does not does not make them different kinds of statements.  Both are truth claims.  Both can be the subject of reasonable debate.  Both are either true or untrue.  Both can be "proven" to an extent, but neither can be proven with absolute certainty. 

None of this justifies ridiculing either of his beliefs/opinions/whatever-you-want-to-call-them.  They should be challenged, because all ideas should be challenged.  They should not be ridiculed.


Was that ridicule of his opinion/belief?... sorry I missed the explicit connections between what he said about sin, homosexuality and bestiality, his beliefs in christianity and his statement that he was commanded to share the gospel with others. I don't see that Colin's (admittedly sarcastic) comment was ridiculing his belief in his religion.
 
I never said "secular belief", I said "secular opinion" - I do not equate opinion with belief. You cannot posit religious opinion as a truth in a secular debate - sorry, but that's just the way it is. Sin does not exist outside religious clubs, very very few religious sins are secular crimes (one or two maybe, if you are lucky), very, very few are codified in common or statute law - the argument that this should not be legal because it is a sin is a weak one.


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2524
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 05 2013 at 20:53
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes


^Why the distinction between his "opinions" and his "beliefs?"  I named both, not to distinguish them, but to lump them into one category.  It is his opinion that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world.  It is also his belief that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world.  Similarly, it is both his opinion and his belief that homosexuality is a sin.  And people here are ridiculing him for both of those beliefs.  The fact that others disagree does not make it right for them to resort to ridicule to express that disagreement.  Surely that type of thing should be discouraged?
If you (and he) find it so hard to distinguish between secular opinion and religious belief then that is a cop-out to prevent anyone from expressing opposition to that secular opinion, people are not ridiculing him for his beliefs.


Yes, he has been ridiculed for his religious beliefs.

Originally posted by Triceratopsoil

Originally posted by AlexDOM


Well actually I'm commanded to share with others the Gospel, well it's more of a blessing to share in, not so much a burden (which Christians including I sometimes fall susceptible to.)
That's adorable.


There's no "cop-out" here.  I make no distinction between a secular belief and a religious one, and I am quite open to opposition to either.  You're making an unfair distinction between his beliefs about God and his beliefs about homosexuality.  Both are his opinion.  Both are his belief.  Both can be posited as truth and both can be argued against; the fact that one has specifically to do with God and the other does not does not make them different kinds of statements.  Both are truth claims.  Both can be the subject of reasonable debate.  Both are either true or untrue.  Both can be "proven" to an extent, but neither can be proven with absolute certainty. 

None of this justifies ridiculing either of his beliefs/opinions/whatever-you-want-to-call-them.  They should be challenged, because all ideas should be challenged.  They should not be ridiculed.


Was that ridicule of his opinion/belief?... sorry I missed the explicit connections between what he said about sin, homosexuality and bestiality, his beliefs in christianity and his statement that he was commanded to share the gospel with others. I don't see that Colin's (admittedly sarcastic) comment was ridiculing his belief in his religion.
 
I never said "secular belief", I said "secular opinion" - I do not equate opinion with belief. You cannot posit religious opinion as a truth in a secular debate - sorry, but that's just the way it is. Sin does not exist outside religious clubs, very very few religious sins are secular crimes (one or two maybe, if you are lucky), very, very few are codified in common or statute law - the argument that this should not be legal because it is a sin is a weak one.


Given the context of Colin's other statements, I think that his comment was obviously ridicule and condescending.  I don't know what else you would call it.

Now you're making an unfair distinction between "religious" and "secular" without explaining why.  I'm not saying that things can't  be "religious" or "secular"; I'm saying that there's no difference in how they can be used in a debate.  "Jesus Christ is the Son of God" is a truth claim, just as much as is any truth claim about homosexuality or politics or science.  You can't neatly divide truth claims into "religious" and "secular" and say that one has no place in the other.  They are both claims to truth.  Objective truth.  They affect each other.  Christians do not merely claim that Jesus is alive in their heads, or that He means something to them; they claim that he objectively, truly, came down from heaven into this earth and died on the cross and rose from the dead.  You can choose to believe that or not.  You can argue for it or against it; and scholars have been arguing about it for years.  It can be the subject of debate because it is an objective truth claim.  It either happened in history or it didn't.  Whether it did or did not has a profound effect on everything else.  You don't have to believe it, but you can't dismiss it as mere fancy that has no bearing on a "secular" debate.  It has as much place on others' arguments based on science or politics or ethics or what have you.

Your argument is an example of an error called the fact/value split; an error that places empirical data in the realm of "fact" or "objective truth" - in other words things that can be objectively true or false.  Then it places things like religion in the realm of "values" or "the subjective"; things that are relative to each individual.  This is false.  Religions make objective truth claims.  "Jesus Christ is the Son of God."  "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet." "The Lord our God, the Lord is one."  None of these are subjective or relative.  They are either objectively true or not.
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.
Back to Top
Polymorphia View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 06 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3135
Post Options Post Options   Quote Polymorphia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 00:22
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes


^Why the distinction between his "opinions" and his "beliefs?"  I named both, not to distinguish them, but to lump them into one category.  It is his opinion that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world.  It is also his belief that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world.  Similarly, it is both his opinion and his belief that homosexuality is a sin.  And people here are ridiculing him for both of those beliefs.  The fact that others disagree does not make it right for them to resort to ridicule to express that disagreement.  Surely that type of thing should be discouraged?
If you (and he) find it so hard to distinguish between secular opinion and religious belief then that is a cop-out to prevent anyone from expressing opposition to that secular opinion, people are not ridiculing him for his beliefs.


Yes, he has been ridiculed for his religious beliefs.

Originally posted by Triceratopsoil

Originally posted by AlexDOM


Well actually I'm commanded to share with others the Gospel, well it's more of a blessing to share in, not so much a burden (which Christians including I sometimes fall susceptible to.)
That's adorable.


There's no "cop-out" here.  I make no distinction between a secular belief and a religious one, and I am quite open to opposition to either.  You're making an unfair distinction between his beliefs about God and his beliefs about homosexuality.  Both are his opinion.  Both are his belief.  Both can be posited as truth and both can be argued against; the fact that one has specifically to do with God and the other does not does not make them different kinds of statements.  Both are truth claims.  Both can be the subject of reasonable debate.  Both are either true or untrue.  Both can be "proven" to an extent, but neither can be proven with absolute certainty. 

None of this justifies ridiculing either of his beliefs/opinions/whatever-you-want-to-call-them.  They should be challenged, because all ideas should be challenged.  They should not be ridiculed.


Was that ridicule of his opinion/belief?... sorry I missed the explicit connections between what he said about sin, homosexuality and **********, his beliefs in christianity and his statement that he was commanded to share the gospel with others. I don't see that Colin's (admittedly sarcastic) comment was ridiculing his belief in his religion.
 
I never said "secular belief", I said "secular opinion" - I do not equate opinion with belief. You cannot posit religious opinion as a truth in a secular debate - sorry, but that's just the way it is. Sin does not exist outside religious clubs, very very few religious sins are secular crimes (one or two maybe, if you are lucky), very, very few are codified in common or statute law - the argument that this should not be legal because it is a sin is a weak one.
I'll just pop my head in for a second. The word "sin," while used often in religious settings, refers to something that is objectively wrong for all people, so by arguing that homosexuality is sin, Alex is saying that it is wrong for all and should not be practiced by any and thus be made illegal. His reasoning certainly takes from his own religious beliefs, but yours take from your lack thereof. You are, against all reason, quarantining a set of beliefs in a subjective bunker only because they involve the metaphysical. The only reason why making homosexual marriage illegal would seem like imposing on the people is not where the argument comes from, but the fact that not everyone agrees on this issue. Making it a protected civil right in the SC citing that homosexuality is not wrong would be imposing in the same way. If the people themselves cannot decide, the issue should not be put in the hands of a few judges, for by making a decision, they would be necessarily misrepresenting and "imposing" on the people.
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8341
Post Options Post Options   Quote The Doctor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 00:32
I have never heard the word "sin" used outside of a religious context and in fact most definitions of the word is that sin is an offense against god. 

How is making homesexual marriage a protected civil right  imposing on anyone?  I'm heterosexual and would not feel imposed upon at all.  Alex can still be a Christian even if homosexual marriage becomes a protected right.  Your argument is that because some religious people will be upset that it's imposing our will on them.  No one will have to act differently in any way if gay marriage becomes a right.  Your argument makes no sense. 

Not letting A impose his will on B is not imposing on A. 


Edited by The Doctor - April 06 2013 at 00:38
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Online Status: Online
Posts: 5478
Post Options Post Options   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 06 2013 at 00:52
Originally posted by Polymorphia

Making it a protected civil right in the SC citing that homosexuality is not wrong would be imposing in the same way. If the people themselves cannot decide, the issue should not be put in the hands of a few judges, for by making a decision, they would be necessarily misrepresenting and "imposing" on the people.


Just to chime in on this particular point, the court in this case would only be trying to decide whether they should give people the 'right' to decide to marry, irrespective of their sexual orientation.  They are not imposing, rather they are trying to free up choices for the people.  If two homosexuals want to unite and call it marriage, so be it.  Other citizens have no right to impose their prejudices on them and directly or indirectly mock and deride their decision to live together.   Trying to place it in an inferior basket to that of 'regular' marriage is in my view both derision and interference.  And, er, I am 100% straight, to pre-empt the usual tired argument made against any attempts to defend LGBT rights.  To paraphrase Stevie Wonder, if my colour black (substitute with applicable one) should not make me a lesser man, why should my sexual orientation either?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213 22>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.531 seconds.